It looks like the flagship FX-8350 and next-best FX-8320 won't be the only FX "Vishera" eight-core chips from AMD, despite the fact that the two occupy low price points of US $194 and $164, respectively. A new model called the FX-8300 surfaced on CPU support lists of a certain motherboard vendor, which reveals quite a bit about it. To begin with, the FX-8300 (model: FD8300WMW8KHK) features nominal core clock speed of 3.20 GHz, with TurboCore frequency of around 3.60 GHz. Its clock speed may be the lowest among its peers, but that results in a significant drop in rated TDP. The new eight-core chip has a rated TDP of 95W, down from 125W of the FX-8320 and FX-8350. It is based on the same C0-stepping silicon as the other models. Socket AM3+ motherboards with AGESA micro-code 1.5 should be able to support it. As for pricing, we expect its 95W TDP to serve as a selling point, and don't expect it to be much cheaper than the 125W FX-8320.

This was meant as a funny comment, but everybody took it so seriously, so personally. I have nothing against AMD or like Intel (on the contrary). But if you check some reviews, mostly for games, the performance is a little better, or on pair with an i3, but definitely bellow any i5. That's it.

Make a workstation with a 8 core vs 2 core and see who win? dont troll allover only why intel is faster ,you have to see first the budget than one people have and what you can get for the price.
Spend money for looks cool and follow what the benchmarks show when you can save money for other things is nonsense than spend for the same thing and obtain a good working machine.
If you put amd vs intel in single thread programs intel works better but after you in a game have 60 + fps where you have to go? make the cool guy in front of the world?

In fairness, I think games will be unplayable on this chip before they're unplayable on an IB i3.

Support for SMP in games is just advancing too slowly.

Click to expand...

Doubt it. Although Piledriver is weakest in gaming, the FX 8350 is consistantly performing about the same as the i3 (not i5 or i7) in single threading gaming already. So even if SMP is moving slowly the i3 is already at a disadvantage as it's losing or performing about the same in games.

Actually fast single cores were the past, which is why processors are cropping up with 4+ cores now, Intel, AMD, and hell, even cell phones. The software industry needs to start optimizing for multi-core because there is a point where the CPU core can't get smaller and can't get faster. There are a lot of tasks that can benefit from having multiple cores and as a programmer I can tell you that it's not easy. It takes time to develop this stuff because there are a lot of things you have to consider when you have multiple CPU cores working with shared memory. Optimizing for multiple threads is significantly more difficult and time consuming than optimizing for one thread.

Yeah it almost matches i3 in gaming. Well ofcourse when we start talking about real productive applications which use 4+ Core it can start trading punches with i7 top dogs. I hope you are keeping up with the news and reviews lately.

Like I said, I can't find any other websites testing gaming performance credibly. FPS is not a good measure of gaming performance.

Example:

in a given second, a system A renders 60 frames, and system B renders 40 frames.

System A took half a second on one frame, and roughly one 118th of a second to render each of the other frames.

System B took one 40th of a second to render each frame.

System A has won by a country mile on FPS, but system B is more fluid to play.

Of course this is an exaggerated example, but I just want to point out how flawed FPS testing is. This is why you get microstutter etc. on multi-GPU systems pulling 100 FPS, and why consoles are playable at 30FPS.